Printable View
I never smoked it, had a liquid habit. The smell gives me a headache for some reason. Now I stay away from anything that makes farm animals attractive but that's another story. Main thing is it's illegal and with so many LEOs in my family plus I sleep on my stomach I don't partake anymore of anything. BTW riding a bike high is dumber than a sled track, walking is even dangerous high. Just my opinion on the stuff growing behind the house.
From age 13 all the way through University the majority of my associations were drug users. The vast majority of these people preferred pot and most would have said it was a "harmless" habit.
This long span of years gave me a great opportunity to observe the effects and ramifications of their drug use. I can say that 100% of the people I knew who were actively using pot regularly, their lives spiraled "out of control". When I say "out of control" I am not referring to over dose, or life-ending situations, but I did observe a marked lack of judgement when it came to making important decisions. I also notice a lack of forsight. Their perspective was to live today, worry about tomorrow when it comes.
Many of these acquaintences dropped out of high school or college. Today, the ones that have moved on, become successful, and are living well adjusted lives within our framework of society have all, and I repeat ALL, given up their previous usage of pot. Every single one that I have spoken to were all in agreement that it was disrupting their lives.
I have run into a few over the years that refused to give up. Two of them are nomads, one who enjoys a biker lifestyle -- which I am not condemning at all -- but he cannot keep steady relationships. The other moves from place to place living on the street or in "homes". One can play chess at a grandmaster level, but instead works at a restaurant so that he can afford his after-work habits.
As for me, I spent over 12 years in constant HEAVY contact with this drug (as well as others) and I never saw an instance where it was beneficial. The best I can say about it, is that it rendered my friends into a bovine jovial state. No they were not harmless to anyone but themselves and their respective futures. I decided early on that I didn't want to change the way my brain functions, so I never indulged nor tried drugs.
Today I am grateful that I never did. I don't need a drug to "open my mind" or "clear my head". I don't need it to relax or expand my reality. There is just too damn much to do to worry about all that esoteric metaphysical pseudo-spiritual BS.
I know that many of you will want to say this is purely anecdotal evidence, but I would have to say that my life experience trumps your theoretical illusions. If you are currently indulging in this lifestyle I think you are most likely maintaining, but certainly not moving forward. It will catch you sooner or later, I have seen it happen every time. I am not speaking of physical ailments, I am talking about your life and where it is going.
It wouldn't bother me at all if tobacco in all it's forms were outlawed. The cost to society to provide medical care for the resulting problems tobacco causes far outweighs the benefits that taxation and sales create.
If you use the reverse logic that marijuana should be legalized because the taxes and sales benefit society than you also have to be ready to say where we draw the line. If growing marijuana is okay then how about poppies?
I don't know where you draw the line but I don't think legalizing it is any more prudent than having tobacco legalized. The ONLY reason tobacco remains legal today is because of lobbiests and the money tobacco generates. Forget the medical impact that all of us pay for through taxes.
Anytime you put a foreign substance into your body there has to be a consequence. Certainly, some drugs are necessary for many to maintain health and life. I can certainly see the medical benefits of marijuana. But, for the life of me, I do NOT understand the use of chemicals to alter your mood unless you are under the direct supervision of a doctor.
I don't want to meet a pot-head driving down the road any more than I want to meet a drunk. Sadly, both are out there driving.
Here in Illinois both Tobacco & Alcohol are illegal... if you're under 18 or 21! I see students getting busted all the time for under-age drinking & under-age buying of both tobacco & booze. Not to mention the establishments that sell it to them without carding 1st. Then there's the new law that bans smoking in ANY establishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Like Chris, I'm a Libertarian, however, pot use, like that of the other stuff is not a matter of legality, but one of morality. What kind of example are we setting for our children & grandchildren? I was on staff at a Rescue Mission for 4 years & saw 1st hand lives that were once filled with promise turned to crap.(there, but for the grace of God, go I) I had people expelled who were using either weed, drugs, or alcohol, & if they didn't leave I called the police to physically remove them as we had other addicts staying there trying desperately to "clean-up" & didn't need to be around that stuff. Sometimes the users didn't go peacefully & spent the night in jail. I could go on & on.
I won't preach to those who want to use as I believe that no member on here can go 24 hours without intentionally breaking a law or two; & as an American you have the right to choose what you want to do, legal or not. I also know that there are some adults, perhaps Chis is one of them, that can use in moderation. However the term "adult" is a pretty broad one. It does not imply maturity, responsibility, wisdom, or class. Think of the term "adult bookstore" for example.
If I was with someone & they lit up a number I'm calling the police! Why? Because they just involved me in an illegal activity that I don't want to be involved in...they need to keep that stuff to themselves! Okay, I think that was more than 2 cents, more like a dime bag!:high:
Someone, was it you, posted how some teenager got high and crashed his car, ergo pot should be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverrat
I pointed out that there were other reasons teenagers crash cars. Like being irresponsible drivers, not getting enough sleep because they were up studying, not getting enough sleep because they were up partying, being distracted by friends in the car, being distracted by phones, being drunk, etc. And if you were going to outlaw for everyone any possible activity that could ever contribute to a motor vehicle accident then you best start there.
This is not comparing smoking marijuana to studying, this is showing how a sad anecdote is utterly worthless as an evidentiary point in a debate.
None of them OD'd on pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by grundle
And yes, it is anecdotal.
And you're also falling for the cum hoc logical fallacy.
More than 50% of people in this country have used marijuana, including Barack Obama, George W Bush, and Bill Clinton. Most people who use marijuana are normal successful people with no criminal record.
Think of tattoos, what you're saying is pretty much the same thing as saying tattoos ruin lives. Just because lots of criminals have tattoos, does not mean tattoos cause criminal behavior. Lots of normal people have tattoos as well.
So then why, is there a higher incidence of tattoos among criminals? Well, getting a tattoo is somewhat rebellious, and someone who does not respect the laws of society is unlikely to respect the social norms of society either. Criminal behavior does not birth tattoos, and tattoos do not birth criminal behavior. Rather a third issue, lack of respect for authority and need to rebel, creates both.
So, just because people who do not contribute to society smoke weed, does not mean that weed is what makes them not contribute to society. Thats just who they are. Tens of millions of people manage to smoke and NOT ruin their lives.
And in the end, the argument is not whether a substance is good. If we were to legislate health and morality we'd outlaw porn, fast food, alcohol, tobacco, candy bars, high fructose corn syrup, R rated movies, etc.
The argument is whether or not the government should outlaw something and spend billions of dollars fighting something that most of the population does anyway. Especially when the alternative (legalization) should reduce violence, reduce the wallet size of drug dealers and drug cartels, reduce ancilliary criminal behavior tied in with the drug trade (smuggling of other stuff, girls, guns, etc), and provide the country with new tax revenue.
If having it be illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, you might as well try the other option eh?
I would draw the line at things that are highly chemically addictive, because a chemical dependency can ruin lives, and turn people to violence or prostitution to support their habit (which also leads to violence). And you can grow poppies by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I think the health costs of tobacco smoking are far worse than of pot if pot were to be legalized. I just don't see people smoking 2 packs worth of joints a day, you couldn't and still function. Marijuana is a depressant, nicotine is a stimulant and far more chemically addictive. But taxes should cover it, if they do not, they need to be increased. I would otherwise agree with making tobacco illegal, but so long as the tax on it covers the cost of healthcare, I'm fine with it.
Also, it isn't a zero sum game. Smokers die younger thus using up less SS and Medicare dollars, that is a savings for other taxpayers beyond health costs.
Also, you have to figure in the cost of law enforcement and incarceration and the cost of the violence prohibition brings now, vs the cost of healthcare.
You have used the classic tactic of ignoring the entire point of my argument so that you can slide your worthless points in. The main point, and you can go back and read it I don't mind, is that those who kept going made a ruin of their lives. Those that quit, although suffering set-backs, were able to move on and achieve a level of success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Endorsing it because Obama, Bush, or Clinton did it does nothing for your argument. Especially since all 3 gave it up and moved on (proving my argument not yours).
I am not arguing that Pot will kill you. I stated that clearly, so I don't know why you brought up overdosing. I was only stating that those who cling to it will suffer setbacks in the progress of their lives. Some people are happy with that, and want it that way. They are satisfied with their chemical substitute for happiness. If that is the way they want it so be it, but that is no reason to "legalize".
Where do you get the "more than 50% statistic"? That is a pretty sweeping statement. You have been harping on people to provide cited sources, so I would ask you to do that for this figure.
I like that you conveniently label my entire argument as "cum hoc" logical fallacy. According to your label then we should also label our entire psychological infrastructure as "cum hoc" because it is based on the observations of certain behaviors over time with conclusions drawn as a direct result. I already know that this would just degenerate to a stratified "intellectual" argument where my lack of credentials and lack of scientific degree disqualifies any of my personal observations as non-scientific. There is a free counterpoint for you.
Let us consider a court of law where these types of observational accounts are allowed. This is known as a witness. I merely gave you a witness of what I saw. Now I know that there is ALWAYS an exception to the rule and most people who think they are good at debating will always point to the exception as their trump card.
What I am saying is that in the general case, which follows my observations and life-experience over a 12 year span is what almost everyone will fall into. Remember the premise once again. If you cling to it, it will limit you. If you move on you can overcome and achieve success of some level. I think that people will always go much farther when they do not have things holding them back.
This is what I have lived, this is what I have seen. Go ahead and cite your scientific journals, theoretical nonsense that you haven't witnessed yourself, because the truth is -- You just got served, I win you lose and its over. That was just an H-bomb I dropped on you. Its good to be king :noway: :lol:
Oh, and remember. Marijuana isn't a carcinogen. Smoke is still smoke, but not smoking uses of marijuana won't hurt you (tea, brownies, etc). Whereas smokeless tobacco will still cause things like mouth or throat cancer. Even with smoking, recent studies do not show a link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. They aren't sure why, perhaps it could be because compounds in marijuana can kill cancer cells, so maybe that outweighs the bad from the smoke.
Um, no. You're just looking more and more unintelligent. Peer reviewed scientific research beats your stories from the hood.Quote:
Originally Posted by grundle
You're making broad generalizations and arbitrary assigning cause and affect based on the life story of a couple of nitwits you know. And since you apparently think that that is superior, there is no way to contradict you. I don't know your nitwit friends, since they are apparently the standard for this issue, I can't argue this topic with you.
I'll stick to my scientific research.
As for the 50% thing, that statistic is fairly common, google around you'll find lots of mentions, this one here says 83 million people.
http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/m...arijuana10.htm
This one says 50% of all baby boomers.
https://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998020508.shtml
PS, not everyone who smokes marijuana has a ****ty life, is dumb, or is unsuccessful. Anymore than not everyone who drinks alcohol is a deadbeat wifebeating alcoholic.
Ya sure, you know, maybe someone has a story about an alcoholic who let alcohol ruin his life, his job, his marriage. But then he went to AA and got clean and turned his life around. Does that anecdote, now matter how it is "served", mean that everyone who takes a drink of beer or wine has a problem, is irresponsible, is going to ruin their life? Etc etc etc?
I think not. A person of low quality is going to have a ****ty life regardless, and a person of high quality can have a great life no matter if they wanted to smoke, or drink, or both, maybe even at the same time.
Chris, this isn't good enough. Once you have an H-Bomb dropped on you there is no coming back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Be glad I put you out of your misery with the nuke, because the arsenic I put in the post before that was only giving you a slow and painful death, but I am a kind and benevolent guy. You should be thanking me, seriously.
Flaming, ie posting insults and personal attacks with no bearing on the topic at hand is against forum policy.
Doing so with absolutely nothing substantial in your post to hide it, is dumb.
Doing so to the admin is really dumb.
Remember, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
I completely agree with Pal on this one!Quote:
Pal334 wrote:"I guess I rank as a "hater", is illegal here, and is not conducive to rational thought (nor does excessive use of alcohol) while operating machinery or making important decisions. I do not presume to comment on your choices . I do know my choice is zero tolerance for that and intoxication, one strike and you are out. That is my opinion"
I completely agree with Hopeak on this point too!Quote:
Hopeak wrote:"......If you inhale anything other than pure fresh air your a fool in my book. And this includes inhaling Smog, Gasoline fumes, Paint fumes, Anything, Cigarettes, Pot, anything. But them I think people are foolish to live where the water or air is unpure..........."
BINGO! So True.Quote:
Riverrat wrote:"...burn out more brain cells and ten times as hard as cigarettes on your lungs..."
BINGO. . . .Again!Quote:
Wildography wrote:[b][i]". . .doesn't seem to be much point in it... as pointed out above: its illegal, makes you just want to "sit on a couch", its hard on your lungs, a failed drug test can make you lose your job, the high - in my opinion - is not as good as a good "buzz" from alcohol, and it causes a person to not think clearly and efficiently. . . ."
Quote:
BicycleRider wrote:". . .For me it seemed to have made life more clear, Its hard to put it into words, but my thinking is actually more straightforward now. I don't look at life as a challenge, I look at it as an experience."
If you really want to clear your head, try taking a long walk in the woods. Smelling the fresh air (which doesn't damage your lungs) and I bet you'll feel much better than after toking a fatty!?Quote:
BicycleRider wrote:". . .It feels good to clear your head every now then."
I don't believe it is the pot making you think more clearly. I think it the fact the you are maturing. It happens to all of us (well some of us), the people whom continue to "toke", as it were, as the get older (and fail to "grow up") are the ones whom don't, care to or want to, grow up and/or face reality.
Saying pot "clears my head" is the same as when drinkers say: "i drive much better after a few drinks"
It's not that they think more clearly (pot smokers) or drive better (drinkers), it just that their brain (or lack of) is so relaxed and their POV is distorted to the point that they really believe they can do these things better. . . .NOT!
And yes there are exceptions to every rule. But in this case the percentage is 1/2% to maybe 1%.
My statements and opinions come from many prior years in the EMS industry.
In my area (not sure if it was state wide,or just the county I lived in at the time) they do/did tax illegal drugs,if a person bought,or otherwise came into possession of any type of drug,they were suposed to go to city hall,and pay taxes on it and get a stamp proving they paid it,if they got caught with the drugs and no stamp,their fines and jail time was increased,funny,they never had anyone willing to come in and pay the tax......
You know, I was thinking last night, pot is very much like alcohol.
There are people who drink every day and they have a problem. But the rest of us who might just drink once a week or on special occassions do not have a problem, and in fact there have been shown to be health benefits of moderate alcohol use (red wine, etc).
There are some people who also do nothing all day but eat junk food and watch TV. Those people have a problem.
There are probably some people who do nothing but go to the casino and play slots all day, those people have a problem.
There are probably some people who do nothing but look at Internet porn all day, those people have a problem too.
I don't think anyone would claim that it is okay to smoke pot all day long, or daily, or to do it at work, or to let it come in the way of work, or family. The same as alcohol, bad eating habits and general slothfulness, gambling, or porn.
But does that mean it should be illegal? Some people have problems with obesity, but junk food and daytime TV are not illegal. Some people have problems with alcohol, but that is not illegal. Some people have problems with gambling, but that is not illegal. And some people have problems with porn, also, not illegal.
If someone wants to sit in their backyard in the summer on a saturday afternoon after mowing the lawn and smoke a joint, should that be illegal? If someone wants to go on vacation to a beach and lay out and smoke should that be illegal?
There are many things in life that are bad for you, and most people through a combination of common sense, will power, and responsibility manage to NOT to overindulge. The fact that there are those out there without such attributes does not mean that something needs to be illegal.
Next time you have a glass of wine, or beer, or say next time you want to brew your own at home. Think, what if people lobbied to make that illegal for you, just because some people didn't know when to say when?
Here's what I know:
1.) I agree with Chris' post about over-indulgent people.
2.) You don't call the administrator an "Idiot" for expressing an opinion
different than your own.
3.) Smoking pot, regardless of legality, is a "moral" issue; & you can't
legislate morality.
4.) The people that Chris describes in the above post are the majority,
They're "sheeple" who subscribe to the "if it feels good do it" philosophy
& will be in trouble given TEOTWAWKI. The members on here are more
"self-sustaining" & are in the minority.
5.) The laws are enacted to both enable big corporations to make big $$,
and to protect the majority from themselves.
6.) Chris is an American, & therefore has the right to his opinion, no
matter how unpopular that may be. (Unless, of course, he says it's ok to
drink urine straight from the bladder, then we'll have a "donnybrook".)
You may disagree with him on his "pot" views,, I do, but go after the
post not the poster! I've disagreed with Remy more times than I can
count yet it's his opinions I'm fighting, not him! There's a difference.:3:
7.) I'll never drink cow-urine.
8.) I'll never warm up to TheFreakinBear...any questions? Remarks?
I'm not going to be sharing my camp with a "pot head"
No Alpine, not from anecdotal evidence. From seeing auto accidents caused by people that were high from smoking pot or the guy (43 y.o.) bungee jumping off a bridge and smacking his head on the rocks below. Why? Because he was "high" (stoned) and didn't pay attention to the fact that the bungee cord was too long for the bridge he jumped off or the guy (56 y.o.) that was so stoned he passed out in the bonfire behind his house and died from the 3rd degree burns over 95% of his body. . .shall I continue??Quote:
Alpine_Sapper wrote:So your statements and opinions come from purely anecdotal evidence. Duly noted. Next?
These are just a few of the actual EMS calls that I PERSONALLY responded to! So I think that I have a very poignant point of view on the subject!?
Completely agree KlkakQuote:
Klkak wrote: I'm not going to be sharing my camp with a "pot head"
Making a blanket assumption about a person’s character based on nothing more than entrenched ideology to me has little merit, but whatever floats your boat.
I've tried to stay away from this thread for the most part, but ........
For those of you who choose to smoke weed (or drink alcohol to get a buzz on) I make no judgments about your personal character or your morals. I merely offer suggestions and observations based upon my own life experiences:
If your lifestyle , obligations, and occupation allow you to choose to smoke, there's a time and a place.
For me, as an adult such a time and place never existed. At 18, I was a volunteer member of our local EMA rescue team. We responded to every water rescue/recovery on our shoreline, every major fire and accident, haz-mat incidents, many medical emergencies, etc. We were on call 24/7. This responsibility just wasn't consistent with having a buzz on.
At 22, I was named the EMA Director for my Town, and soon after became Special Legal Assistant to the state EMA Director. Again, on call 24/7. I kinda' felt that I should be ready to respond whenever the need arose. You see, we coordinated and directed every local department and provided our own teams of "professional volunteers" in emergencies. Needed a straight head for that. I can't even remember ever having more than two beers in one day.
In my off time, I spent alot of time on the ocean or in the White Mountains. I didn't need the embarassment of screwing up in either place because I was buzzed. I also didn't want to ever place my colleagues in the rescue service at risk because of my own foolish actions.
I was also in school at the time. I didn't want to do a reading assignment if all I would see on the page was "psor oubp pw8e 8byo7 qob;m jiouh ygvi."
When I became a criminal defense lawyer, I was amazed at how many "after-hours" calls I received - many of which required me to go to local police stations to meet clients. Not a good time or place to be with a buzz on. BTW - I was still in charge of EMA. We responded to incidents on a regular basis. If I went into the water with my dive team, or directed an emergency evacuation, I was glad I had a clear head at the time.
In my late 20's, I became a dad for the first time. Two more kids after that. Damn, if those kids didn't get sick or hurt on a fairly regular basis. I kinda' felt that it was my responsibility to be 100% ready to deal with such matters. Always.
In my early 30's, I left EMA because I was elected as the chief executive officer in my community. Still a dad and still a lawyer. Get my point here?
If you choose to party - that's your decision. I make no judgments. Unless you render yourself incapable of meeting urgent responsibilities that may arise with your children, your job, or in other areas of your life.
Oh yeah. I'd also have a problem if you operated a vehicle or held a firearm if you weren't 100% sober or straight. Same would go if you ever placed others at risk of any danger or any type of harm as a result of your actions.
Otherwise, if you wanna' smoke a bone in your own backyard at night with a few friends, okay - go for it. No judgments here. Just don't allow anyone to drive away all buzzed out.
Just my two cents.